There is an extensive review of the Farrell mounts at www.snipershide.com
Not sure what column it is under but there is about three pages.
Bottom line is that Ken Farrell had some bumb screws, they bent or broke on some rifles with fairly heavy scopes. Ken fixed the problem with better screws PLUS he has always suggested and recommends that his bases be bedded to the receiver for perfect fit and best performance.
Some guys never did this and the basic design of the base - which is concave and does not fit directly to the receiver like a glove (fact is no base can do that as there are so many variables involved in manufacturing receiver).
The best solution in Ken's opinion (and logically) is to put some bedding material under the concave base which would make for a perfect fit and also provide some "support" for the screws. Alternate is to machine a lug or contact point into the base so that it butts against the front of the receiver, taking the recoil forces.
If you are on a budget or just don't feel the need for Picatinny spec bases the Farrells are excellent. Bedding them is simple and cheap, must admit that I have not done it yet and might never since the Farrell base I am using is doing fine on a .223.
Badgers and Nears are top-end products and you pay for that quality. Farrells can do much the same job for about 1/2 the cost, but they are not intended to compete with Picatinny spec bases, they are a lower-priced, beautifully machined and blued rail that will provide varying degrees of slope and accept most Weaver style rings. Some people drive Camrys, some prefer Lexus - they both haul your butt to Walmart.
**Amazing how someone can warble on and on about a simple freaking scope base, isn't it [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]